Response to common evolutionist arguments

 

"People skeptical of evolution are 'science deniers'"

This accusation confuses science with theory. Science is "systematic study through observation and experimentation" while a theory, such as evolution, is a "system of ideas intended to explain something". Rejecting a theory is much different than denying the entire enterprise of science. Most people who reject evolution firmly believe in the principles of observation and experimentation, yet don't find the evidence offered for evolution compelling. Furthermore, calling skeptics of evolution "science deniers" is merely an ad hominem attack and cannot replace arguments and evidence. No amount of name calling can save a weak theory.


"Evolution is the scientific consensus in biology. Most scientists, professors, and educated people are evolutionists so it's ridiculous to question it."

Consensus is a dangerous way to determine truth. In the past, scientific consensus has favored many false theories such as geocentricism and luminiferous aether. Yet these false ideas were only overturned because a minority challenged the "scientific facts" held by the majority. In order for scientific progress to be made theories must be judged on the basis of their evidence and explanatory power, not on authority or how widely accepted they are.


"Natural selection is proof that creatures evolve. We observe finch beaks changing shape, pod lizards getting larger, and peppered moths changing color. If creatures can adapt and change, then they'll eventually become different species." 

The problem with this reasoning is the jump from scientific observation to philosophical speculation; it doesn't follow that slight changes within species will inevitably give rise to new species. In the Peppered moth example, both spotted and black moths already existed but the spotted ones were more visible to predators, who weeded them out. As with all examples of alleged "evolution in action" no new species were created through observable natural selection. The only thing the examples confirm is that creatures adapt within their species and population ratios change over time. You can't simply point to examples of the mechanism (natural selection) and claim it proves the theory (evolution). It's true that natural selection is well a established fact, but it doesn't follow that it's a creative force. Despite the many examples of unfit creatures being weeded out, Darwinian evolution remains hypothetical.

 


"The fossil record proves that evolution happened. It shows a gradual transition of 'intermediates' linking one life form to another."

The underlying philosophical assumption of evolution is that if structures are similar from one species to the next, it proves that those species are related. But until the premise can be demonstrated, lining up similar skeletons does nothing to prove evolution has taken place.

The underlying philosophical assumption of evolution is that if structures are similar from one species to the next, it proves that those species are related. But until the premise can be demonstrated, lining up similar skeletons does nothing to prove evolution has taken place.

The attempt to prove evolution with fossils is built on the ungrounded assumption that structural similarities can only be the product of evolution. Darwinists assume that if they can arrange creatures with common traits from simple to complex, then these "intermediates" prove evolution happened. However, for this to work, they must first demonstrate that similarities in structure cannot be caused by anything but evolution. Since homologous structures are also a prominent feature of design, lining up a sequence of structurally similar fossils doesn't support evolution any more than it supports the design hypothesis. 

Interpreting fossils is a highly subjective practice. It involves speculating how extinct creatures looked and behaved, often based on a few crumbled bones or even a single tooth. Then it requires subjective judgements about how similar the 'reconstructed' animals are to others, what similarities count, and why. Furthermore, the lack of soft-tissue when analyzing an animal makes it nearly impossible to make these judgments with any certainty. There is no objective scale for measuring that a Pakicetus is more similar to a whale than a hippo. We rely solely on the opinions of evolutionists who believe their similarities to be relevant.  

There have been a number of prominent evolutionary fossil hoaxes, so we should be careful not to accept fossil 'intermediates' as infallible. Obviously, not all fossils are hoaxes and we should give scientists the benefit of the doubt regarding their integrity. But it would be reckless to completely dismiss the possibility of fraud or self-deception among scientists and the media. Unfortunately, the desire and pressure to find intermediates has left some evolutionists extremely vulnerable to deception. 


"The universal genetic code (DNA) is evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor."

This argument is weak because the existence of DNA supports the rival theory of design with greater force. A complex universal code is exactly what we would expect from a universal designer. We never observe language or codified information appearing without intelligence, so we have no reason to believe it can arise through unguided natural processes. Just as code in a computer program is evidence of a programmer, the universal genetic code is evidence of a designer. Even if DNA did support Darwin's theory, it can't be said to be exclusive evidence for it.


"Evolution gets rid of the need for a creator"

Evolution is an inadequate substitute for a creator because it fails to address the topic of origins. For example, biological evolution can't explain the origin of the universe, matter, physics, consciousness, or how life can arise from non-living matter. Instead, It's a theory that only seeks to explain specie variety and requires pre-existing living organisms to work. Even if evolution were true, a designer would still be necessary to provide the materials and physical laws required for the process to begin in the first place.